On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 02:44:27PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Thu, 2009-11-26 at 20:20 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > I think we generally want to encourage the creation of classes of > > events, not myriads of standalone events, each with their own call > > signature, record format and printouts. > > > > In that sense making the TRACE_EVENT() one longer would achieve that > > goal of discouraging its over-use: DEFINE_SINGLE_EVENT() tells the > > developer that it's an event of it's kind. > > But I do agree with Frederic that this can be a little confusing, since > it makes it sound like DEFINE_EVENT is for multiple events. > > What about saying exactly what it does? > > DECLARE_AND_DEFINE_EVENT() It tells so much that it is confusing :) > > Come to think of it, since current TRACE_EVENT is now just: > > #define TRACE_EVENT() \ > TRACE_EVENT_TEMPLATE() \ > DEFINE_EVENT > > This may make the most sense. I haven't tried it, but I believe that you > could even base other events off of the TRACE_EVENT. That is: > > TRACE_EVENT(x, ...); > > DEFINE_EVENT(x, y, ...); > > And y would use x as its class. > > So going back to your scheme of DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS(), it may make sense > to have DECLARE_AND_DEFINE_EVENT(). > > > DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS(class, ...); > DEFINE_EVENT(class, foo, ...); > > DECLARE_AND_DEFINE_EVENT(bar, ...); Yep, or DEFINE_EVENT_NOCLASS. > DEFINE_EVENT(bar, zoo, ...); > > > May work. > > -- Steve > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tip-commits" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|